Tiger wrote:hmmm if you are from the UK.. Did you ever wonder why there are no Austins, Morrises, Humbers etc.. When times go tough in the UK auto industry the "owners" wanted a roll back to stave off bankruptcy.. the union asked for more money.. Bingo.. no auto industry in UK.. broke owners and unemployed auto workers.. Except for the ones working for foreign ownership . Get down on your knees and thank God for Maggie Thatcher breaking a few union heads and there are still some jobs left in the UK.. Right now its the same story in the USA for hockey owners and players., time to renogotiate contracts that were made in good faith ..

Actually thats a very apt point against the NHL owners, you see the UK auto industry is still there, they build almost as many cars as the always have and the industry is still part of the backbone of British industry. Its just that the morons in charge in the 70's and 80's blundered so badly that the industry is now 95 percent foreign owned... The moral of the story for the NHL? The workers are still there its the owners who have gone..

And the financial state of the country is what?

If anything I would hope that North America would have learned the price of selling out to foreign investors. It's a shot at the employee who wants more now at the expense of the overall whole (not just his own industry). How many jobs were lost and people had to go, and are still going, through some seriously tough financial times because the union forced the employer to pay more to the worker and then the employer says, "See ya later, you're laid off." or, "I'm selling you to the Chinese, negotiate with those Commie bastards if you can."

Good stuff.

First off the auto industry wasnt sold off to the chinese, it was parceled out to North American, European and Japanese interests. who kept the valuable bits, took advantage of the marques which still have cache and what was left over was sold to China and India and to a lesser degree Russia. who have either driven them into the ground ...RIP TVR... or are building new versions of old cars there (the new MG6 GT) However, the factories and jobs stayed in the UK, the cars that are built here are almost completely exported overseas and the cars bought here are almost exclusively imported from Europe through the EU. Globalization at work and nothing to do with unions, However, its a mistake to think that industry went to China because unions keep wages and benefits artificially high, they go to China because wages are artificially low there.

ukcanuck wrote:Actually thats a very apt point against the NHL owners, you see the UK auto industry is still there, they build almost as many cars as the always have and the industry is still part of the backbone of British industry. Its just that the morons in charge in the 70's and 80's blundered so badly that the industry is now 95 percent foreign owned... The moral of the story for the NHL? The workers are still there its the owners who have gone..

The part you miss is the foriegn auto industry in UK is non union bud, that's gotta hurt. They still get the same money but say good buy to the restrictive practises = success

The whole country is non union now as you would define it Fred, but thats a misleading statement, there are still unions. there are three in my profession alone, but they are fractured and have very little bargaining power or right to strike, and while wages are good and benefits are standardised. Job security is based on contracts, its pretty much exclusively "what have you done for me lately" unless its on paper. This leaves a potentially litigious state of affairs and unions still have power there in hiring the best lawyers money can buy, hello Donald Fehr... to make sure that if a guy loses his job its proper and just, and no one gets fired because the boss's son wants a job. In the new UK, it pays to be a member of a union for the legal protection it gives.

I am not a complete dinosaur, I realise its not the first, second, or even third industrial revolution anymore and that the rights won by unions are now standard and expected in the workplace and general strikes are not needed like they once were, but its a fools game to think that just because the pendulum has swung one way doesn't mean its not ever going to swing back.

However, be careful about the restrictive practices to which you speak in the case of the Auto industry in the UK, much of the problem was nationalisation and government interference, and the bad blood between labour and management? Well take a look at the living conditions in the industrial north in the 50s. and its easy to see where that came from.

Hockey Widow wrote:50/50 was always the goal. This is no surprise. What is a surprise is no change to the HRR formula. I think the PA should be happy with this.

Apparently now the PA is claiming the league is attempting to "clarify" HRR in the new proposal so I guess we weren't so lucky.

Looking at the deal it would seem the players get a few percentage points back (nevermind of what) in exchange for a laundry list of concessions. The league's not giving much up beyond those percentage points, except for the right to appeal suspensions.

Nice PR move by the league to arrive at the "50/50" talking point and I hope it's enough to start the thaw that will be needed to get a deal done but the offer is more than fair to ownership.

Following is the full text of the NHL's offer for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in order to preserve a full, 82-game season that the National Hockey League presented Tuesday to the NHL Players' Association (along with the accompanying commentary and descriptions also provided to the NHLPA). While the original intention was not to release the details of the offer publicly, not surprisingly there have been widespread reports attempting to describe and characterize the terms of the offer that understandably are incomplete. As a result, we believe that full public disclosure at this stage is both necessary and appropriate.

See a detailed explanation of the proposal

NHL PROPOSAL TO SAVE 82-GAME SEASON

1. Term:

• Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.

2. HRR Accounting:

• Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

3. Applicable Players' Share:

• For each of the six (6) years of the CBA (and any additional one-year option) the Players' Share shall be Fifty (50) percent of Actual HRR.

4. Payroll Range:

• Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

• Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

• In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

6. System Changes:

• Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

• Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years).

• Group 3 UFA eligibility for Players who are 28 or who have eight (8) Accrued Seasons (continues to allow for early UFA eligibility -- age 26).

• Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

• Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

• Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.

• NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.

7. Revenue Sharing:

• NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of $200 million for 2012/13 season (based on assumption of $3.303 Billion in actual HRR). Amount will be adjusted upward or downward in proportion to Actual HRR results for 2012/13. Revenue Sharing Pools in future years will be calculated proportionately.

• At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

• The distribution of the Revenue Sharing Pool will be determined on an annual basis by a Revenue Sharing Committee on which the NHLPA will have representation and input.

• For each of the first two years of the CBA, no Club will receive less in total Revenue Sharing than it received in 2011/12.

• Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.

• Existing performance and "reduction" standards and provisions relating to "non-performers" (i.e., CBA 49.3(d)(i) and 49.3(d)(ii)) will be eliminated and will be adjusted as per the NHL's 7/31 Proposal.

8. Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline:

• Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

9. No "Rollback":

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

10. Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision:

• The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.) Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.

With respect to HRR they say: "Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements." So yes they want to clarify but I don't see where they are trying to rewrite HRR. Also willing to honour all existing contracts but with escrow rules. Like that they eliminate waivers but all salaries over $105,000 count towards the cap. So no more burying players. Can retain salary and cap in trades, limit two at any one time. If you trade a player that retires later on in his term the team signing the contract is on for any cap hit during retirement, aka Luongo. There is a lot to like here and I think the PA will be hard pressed to just dismiss this one, at least do that and keep public support.

"Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

My guess is that the PA does not table a formal offer in which salaries are still linked to revenue. They will come back again with an "unlinked" proposal based around a different system they they know full well will not be accepted.

The new offer will be seen as "movement" by those who do not understand that linkage is a fundamental part of the old CBA and by removing and basing things around "growth estimates" the players really aren't reducing their share.

In other words the new offer will just be a PR thing and they will refuse to negotiate under the current structure and we will all be back at square 1.

BTW I hate the owners current proposal and I'm glad the players don't like it.

Not only would we have major cap problems starting next summer but we would be absolutely screwed by the rules concerning Lu's contract.

I would rather miss half the season then see the current deal signed as is.

And why the fuck would the owners want a deal that screws half the teams in the league? That clause has Brian Burkes stench all over it.

To be honest the best thing in the world from a Canuck perspective would be a crushing victory for the PA. All these rules that tighten up the cap take away the inherent advantages of this market.

Totally agreed Pot. That long term contract rule is poison to many of the league's biggest clubs and I'll be astonished if the economic engines of the league (save for the Maple Leafs who couldn't sign a player deserving of a retirement contract if they tried) sit back and allow Bettman to fuck them like that.

The optimistic approach at this point is to hope that the players see enough in this proposal to make a deal, and a lot of the craziness (contract term limits, explicitly punishing teams who signed a handful of deals) gets cut out when the league makes a few concessions to get a deal done.

HW, you're right that they don't outright redefine HRR in their proposal but they very clearly put it on the table ("subject to mutual clarification"). So depending on where they intend to go with that it undermines the integrity of the "50/50" claim.

Another issue with this proposal is that the league's attempt to repay the salaries of players who take a cut in the first two years of the CBA actually allows those repayments to be subtracted from HRR - so essentially the players who are repaid will get their money out of the pockets of other PA members. Not quite the conciliatory gesture it appears to be.

The sudden drop to 50% will screw a lot of teams for the next 5-6 years. It will also lower new contracts for players who become RFA or UFA as teams won't have the cap to sign them. I do think a gradual decrease over the next 5 years is more doable. Existing deals will be honoured but subject to the terms of escrow which means roll backs not matter how you slice it. I think the offer is a move in the right direction but will require tweaking. I hope if the PA rejects it they counter. There are things to like about the NHL's offer but I too see some of the problems. I don't mine the BB clause at all with respect to trades. I don't like the Luongo clause at all though. It basically means in ALL future trades the team signing the contract can be on the hook for legacy payments and or cap should a player cease to play in the NHL for whatever reason. One of those well meaning clauses that can backfire and make trades more difficult.

dbr wrote:Another issue with this proposal is that the league's attempt to repay the salaries of players who take a cut in the first two years of the CBA actually allows those repayments to be subtracted from HRR - so essentially the players who are repaid will get their money out of the pockets of other PA members. Not quite the conciliatory gesture it appears to be.

Those things are smaller issues that could probably be negotiated out of the deal.

The players will prop them up as "deal breakers" and use them as an excuse not to negotiate around the owners current offer.

I do not think the PA at this time is willing to negotiate a share reduction that is linked at all. They want to get something significant in return for a lower share.

I think the owners would most likely take a deal built around the current framework with a few small changes as long at it reduced the players share to the low 50"s over the next few years.

I do not however believe the players are willing to offer them a deal like that, at this time. That will of course most likely change as time passes.

Haven't the owners effectively backed themselves into a corner by putting a Nov 2nd deadline for a 82 game schedule? Speaking strictly from a negotiation standpoint, I'm not sure making that announcement makes a lot of sense. I guess it's designed to make themselves look good to the fans, but honestly, why would the players want to play 82 games at this point? With the injury problems the Canucks have had in the past, even as a fan I don't want them playing 82 games. A reduced schedule would be a blessing in disguise for this team.

I wonder how far in advance this compressed schedule was made... I'm willing to bet it's already drawn up, and Gary's been holding onto it for awhile.

MacKenzie makes an interesting point on the Bobby Lou clause. By the time he is set to retire, this CBA ids done. That will be something for the next CBA.

Retaining cap in trades stinks of mickey mouse CFL owners having multiple teams. Keep the perceived conflict of interest two paymaster system far away from the league.

I think the minor league salary inclusion in the cap is a bone thrown to the PA to keep it's members from being buried however the effect will be a further squeeze on mid tier players.

Star players will still get their money, kids will be expected to perform fresh out of the gate with little patience for player development. But guys like Higgins, aging vets, still useful, but teams will have less cap space for them and they best get used to seeing their names spelled in Cyrillic.

Tiger wrote:hmmm if you are from the UK.. Did you ever wonder why there are no Austins, Morrises, Humbers etc.. When times go tough in the UK auto industry the "owners" wanted a roll back to stave off bankruptcy.. the union asked for more money.. Bingo.. no auto industry in UK.. broke owners and unemployed auto workers.. Except for the ones working for foreign ownership . Get down on your knees and thank God for Maggie Thatcher breaking a few union heads and there are still some jobs left in the UK.. Right now its the same story in the USA for hockey owners and players., time to renogotiate contracts that were made in good faith ..

Check the figures... One of the European countries that is doing best at the moment is Sweden, where more than 80 % of the workforce is unionized and where the unions have representation on the board of directors.

I'd say the problem in North America is that unions are too weak (and some infiltrated by the mob, so they aren't really focused on what's best for the workers). 99 % of the time the long term interests of the company and the workers are the same. The problem is that both the owners and the employees often focus too much on what benefits them in the short term, which means they screw eachother over. When the two sides respect each other and negotiate in good faith, there's usually very few problems they can't agree on.

The latest is the Fehr and company may threaten to de-certify the PA voiding all existing deals and making everyone a FA. Not sure legally how all that works but someone has said that if they decertify the league cannot impose restrictions for fear of collusion charges.

Now I have no idea how all this translates but I do have a hard time seeing the stars walk away from their mega deals. But as someone said, they still get paid because the Rangers of the world would be offering 15 million a year for their services, with no cap or salary restrictions. Anyway I call it a BS ploy because I do not see the PA signing off but what appears more than evident is that Fehr wants to remove the cap.